LB 

3047 

.5 

C2 

A76 

1911 

MAIN 


2if  m\ 


The  California  Textbook  System 

By   L.    E.   ARMSTRONG 
Secretary  California  Teachers'  Association 


An  indictment  of  a  plan  that  bars  free 
textbooks,  that  prevents  a  democratic 
system  of  local  adoptions,  that  interferes 
with  our  educational  development,  and 
that  costs  the  people  unreasonable  prices 
for  poorly  dressed  books. 


Reprint  from 

Sierra  Educational  Nervs 

October  and  November^  19  f  I 


1 


Bolte  &  Br»dea  Co. 
San  Fr 


^ 


THE  CALIFORNIA  TEXTBOOK  SYSTEM 


mi 


Ni 


At  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature*  the  Senate  appointed  a  com- 
mittee of  five  of  its  members  to  investigate  the  general  question  of  text- 
books for  our  elementary  schools.  This  committee  has  made  a  promising 
beginning.  Its  recent  hearings  in  San  Francisco  have  fully  sustained  the 
charges  made  by  the  State  Board  of  Control  that  for  years  there  has  been 
shameful  mismanagement  of  the  State  Printing  Office.  It  was  shown 
that  if  a  business-like  administration  of  that  office  could  be  secured,  the 
price  of  our  textbooks  would  be  materially  reduced. 

INTEREST    IN    THE   TEXTBOOK    INVESTIGATION 

The  investigation  has  attracted  wide  attention.  The  people  of  Cal- 
ifornia are  vitally  interested  in  the  question  of  textbooks,  especially  in  the 
cost  feature.  The  press  of  the  State  has  commented  freely  on  the  investi- 
gation. An  editorial  in  the  San  Francisco  Chronicle  is  especially  stim- 
ulating : 

"The  investigators  of  the  State  Printing  Office  are  merely  finding 
out  the  details  of  what  all  those  familiar  with  such  business  have 
always  known  must  exist  there. 

"Any  State  Printing  Office  is,  and  will  remain,  a  State  scandal. 
TTiere  may  be  a  temporary  spurt  of  purification  such  as  is  now  going 
on,  but  unless  himian  nature  has  suddenly  experienced  a  revolutionary 
change  the  office  will  speedily  drift  back  into  its  old  rut. 

"For,  frankly,  that  is  precisely  what  the  office  is  intended  for.  It 
was  not  and  could  not  have  been  to  promote  any  public  interest.  It 
was  organized  with  the  deliberate  intent  to  find  easy  jobs  for  a  few 
scores  of  people  at  the  expense  of  the  taxpayers  and  school  children, 
and  to  enable  the  State  Printer  to  do  politics  or  worse  with 
contractors. 

"Nor  will  any  installation  of  a  cost-keeping  system  prevent  it.  It 
is  perfectly  easy  to  beat  any  cost  system  when  those  in  control  so 
desire,  and  the  very  existence  of  such  a  system  will  make  it  safer  by 
allaying  public  suspicion. 

"TTie  Chronicle  will  not,  and  the  people  should  not,  prejudge 
the  personal  conduct  of  the  State  Printer.  TTiat  will  be  justified  or 
otherwise  by  the  facts  as  they  appear. 

3 


3G2025 


"But  we  shall  none  of  us  err  if,  without  further  knowledge  than 
we  already  have,  we  make  up  our  minds  that  the  system  itself  is  rotten.** 

AN  EXPERIMENT  IN  TEXTBOOKS 

This  editorial  in  the  Chronicle  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
people  of  California  are  about  to  come  out  of  a  twenty-six-year  trance. 
Back  in  1885  California  ventured  upon  an  experiment  that  no  other 
state  had  ever  tried,  and  one  that  no  other  state  since  then  has  deemed 
wise  to  try.  Through  specious  argument  and  gross  misrepresentation, 
the  people  of  California  voted  in  1 885  to  compile  and  publish  their  own 
textbooks.  It  was  loudly  proclaimed  and  fondly  believed  that  such  a 
system  would  yield  superior  books,  at  a  reduced  cost,  to  those  offered 
by  the  several  publishing  firms — denominated  for  political  purposes  as 
"the  book  trust.**  Thus  the  people  enthusiastically  created  a  real 
monopoly  in  the  authorship,  manufacture  and  sale  of  textbooks.  Alf 
competition  was  eliminated.  The  grave  responsibility  of  compiling  the 
books  was  entrusted  to  the  State  Board  of  Education — a  board  con- 
taining no  members  experienced  in  producing  texts.  It  was  cheerfully 
assumed,  however,  that  successful  authors  of  textbooks  were  indigenous 
to  California  even  as  the  giant  redwoods.  The  serious  task  of  man- 
aging the  business  end  of  the  undertaking — the  manufacture  of  the 
books — was  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  politician  selected,  in  nearly  every 
instance,  by  big  business  interests  which  hoped  to  profit  from  favorable 
contracts.  Truly  a  promising  combination  of  politics  and  business  to 
handle  free  from  competition  an  enterprise  running  well  toward  a  quarter 
million  dollars  a  year!  And  this  combination  could  not  lose  because  it 
had  the  big  purse  of  the  State  to  fall  back  upon.  The  cheerful  confidence 
of  the  people  in  1 885  in  establishing  this  system  seems  pathetic  to  us  now. 

FRUITS  OF  THE  SYSTEM 

Was  not  the  plan  in  both  its  features  an  invitation  to  disaster?  On 
the  authorship  side  we  deliberately  turned  our  backs  on  books  that  had 
been  tested  in  the  fierce  heat  of  competition  all  over  the  United  States. 
Surely  it  was  a  provincial,  short-sighted  pride  that  refused  the  best 
the  country  at  large  had  to  offer,  in  favor  of  the  work  of  unknown, 
untried  California  authors!  On  the  business  end  we  provided  an 
unholy  combination  of  politics  and  business,  thereby  laying  a  sure 
foundation  for  faulty  service  and  grave  scandals.     With  such  a  plan, 

4 


what  could  we  expect?     Do  men  gather  grapes  of  thorns,  or  figs  of 
thistles? 

We  were  not  slow  in  harvesting  the  natural  crop.  We  saddled  the 
children  of  California  with  books  that  were  worse  than  disappointments. 
As  a  whole  they  were  a  crime  against  helpless  childhood.  Competent 
students  of  education  bear  witness  that  of  the  eighteen  books  prepared  by 
local  authors  and  published  at  the  State  Printing  Office  from  1885  to 
1903,  not  one  book  could  be  considered  a  thoroughly  satisfactory  text; 
not  one  could  bear  comparison  with  books  issued  by  the  regular  pub- 
lishers. As  the  new  State  texts  gradually  replaced  the  former  and 
better  books,  the  situation  grew  worse,  and  finally  became  intolerable. 
Evasions  and  violations  of  the  law  were  every-day  occurrences.  The  law 
requiring  children  to  use  the  State  texts  was  evaded  through  the  purchase 
by  the  districts  of  large  numbers  of  supplementary  books,  which  were 
quietly  used  in  place  of  the  State  texts.  In  many  instances  children 
bought  these  other  and  better  books  in  place  of  the  State  texts — a  clear 
violation  of  the  law — while  those  in  authority  winked  at  it.  Teachers 
and  principals  talked  learnedly  of  the  advantages  of  the  topical  method, 
and  under  its  mantle  brought  in  supplementary  books  galore.  Thus, 
for  the  sake  of  the  children,  did  we  circumvent  a  bad  law.  The  habit 
of  supplementary  books  became  so  strong  that  when  a  happier  day 
dawned,  in  1 903,  it  required  a  firm  crusade  to  place  reasonable  restric- 
tions on  the  use  of  supplementary  books.  Hundreds  of  thousands  of 
dollars  were  spent  by  parents  and  districts  for  supplementary  books 
as  a  direct  result  of  the  rotten  series  of  State  texts.  And  yet  the  plan 
of  state  publication  was  adc^ted  as  an  economy  measure  I 

REFORMING  THE  AUTHORSHIP  FEATURE 

Finally  the  storm  of  complaint  against  the  State  texts  became  so 
fierce  and  continuous  from  teachers  and  parents  alike,  that  the  Attorney 
General  came  to  the  rescue.  In  1903  he  rendered  an  opinion  that  the 
constitutional  provision  requiring  state  compilation  and  publication  of 
textbooks  would  be  complied  with  if  the  books  were  actually  printed  at 
the  State  Printing  Office.  A  statute  was  framed  accordingly,  enabling 
the  State  Board  of  Education  to  adopt  the  best  books  from  the  open 
market,  leasing  the  plates  from  the  original  publishers  and  paying  a  roy- 
alty on  each  book  sold.  By  this  legal  legerdemain  we  managed  after 
eighteen  years  to  squirm  out  of  one-half  of  a  bad  plan.     But  the  other 

5 


half — the  manufacture  of  the  books  in  the  State  Printing  Office — is  still 
with  us.  For  several  valid  reasons,  this  feature  also  must  go  before  we 
shall  have  a  system  worthy  of  California. 

MISLEADING  COMPARISON   OF   PRICES 

In  the  first  place,  the  character  of  the  work  done  in  the  State  Print- 
ing Office  confirms  the  belief  that  the  fundamental  plan  is  inherently 
wrong,  as  pointed  out  in  the  editorial  in  the  Chronicle.  We  can  not 
reasonably  expect  a  clean,  businesslike  administration  of  that  office.  A 
strong,  efficient  Governor,  an  alert  Board  of  Control,  and  a  determined 
Senate  committee  may  force  a  temporary  reform.  But  so  long  as  the 
product  of  that  office,  freed  by  law  from  competition,  is  accepted  by  the 
State,  just  so  long  will  the  office  remain  a  political  one,  whether  elective 
or  appointive.  For  it  will  remain  an  asylum  for  political  henchmen, 
who  will  determine  for  themselves  what  constitutes  a  fair  day's  work. 
A  few  illustrations  of  the  character  of  the  work  done  may  prove  illumi- 
native of  the  contention  that  the  State  Printing  Office  must  go. 

The  State  Prmting  Office  recognizes  only  one  fundamental  problem 
— that  of  publishing  the  books  adopted  by  the  State  Board  at  a  few 
cents  less  than  the  list  prices  of  these  same  books  as  sold  by  the  pub- 
lishers. Now  a  book  is  a  book  to  some  people,  just  as  a  horse  is  a  horse 
to  others.  But  a  lover  of  books  recognizes  a  difference  in  books  just 
as  a  lover  of  horses  recognizes  a  difference  in  horses.  Two  men  may 
both  have  a  set  of  Shakespeare,  but  one  set  may  be  worth  ten  times  the 
other.  Since  the  plan  of  leasing  plates  was  adopted  in  1903,  the  State 
Printing  Office  has  not  issued  one  book  equal  in  binding  and  paper  to  the 
same  book  as  published  regularly.  To  bring  this  point  home  with  its 
attendant  implications,  compare  our  present  State  text  in  history  with  the 
same  book  (McMaster's  Brief  History  of  the  United  States)  as  sold 
in  the  open  market.  In  the  State  text  we  find  paper  so  poor  that  the 
illustrations  are  not  clear;  the  margins  have  been  reduced,  evidencing 
skimpiness  and  stinginess ;  and,  worst  of  all,  the  leaves  are  merely  pasted 
to  the  back,  while  the  regular  publishers*  edition  is  strongly  mounted  with 
a  reinforced  linen  back  to  which  the  leaves  are  securely  stitched.  Any 
competent  bookbinder  will  testify  that  the  book  from  the  publisher  will 
easily  last  twice  as  long  as  the  book  from  the  State  Printing  Office. 
What  is  true  of  the  history  is  true  of  the  other  books.  Compare  the 
geographies  published  by  the  State  with  the  same  books  issued  by  the 
regular  publishers.     But  why  multiply  instances? 

6 


TTie  State  Printer  claims  with  pride  that  he  can  undersell  the  regu- 
lar publishers.  Can  he  really  undersell  them,  quality  for  quality?  His 
one  great  advantage  is  a  ready  market — safely  his  by  law.  With  no 
expense  for  establishing  a  demand  for  his  goods,  such  as  all  regular 
publishers  must  meet,  he  issues  books  that  no  reputable  publisher  would 
dare  offer  the  public.  In  each  case  the  State  Printer  prepares  for  the 
use  of  our  children  an  illegitimate  brother  of  a  well-bom  book,  a  coun- 
terfeit presentment  of  few  days  and  full  of  trouble  for  the  children. 
When  the  State  Printer  can  produce  books  equal  in  paper  and  binding 
to  the  regular  editions  of  these  books,  we  shall  listen  to  a  comparison  of 
prices.  A  comparison  of  prices  that  does  not  take  varying  qualities  into 
consideration  is  worthless.  TTiis  comparison  at  the  present  time  on  a 
false  assumption  of  equal  paper  and  binding  is  thoroughly  reprehensible 
because  its  deliberate  intent  is  to  mislead.  It  is  unfair  to  the  publishers 
and  also  to  the  children.  For  have  we  not  vaunted  ourselves,  saying 
that  the  best  is  none  too  good  for  our  children?  But  we  continue  a 
system  that  places  in  the  hands  of  these  children  books  that  are  decidedly 
inferior  in  paper  and  binding  to  those  used  in  any  of  the  other  states 
of  the  rank  of  California. 

THE  COMING  OF  FREE  TEXTBOOKS 

There  can  be  little  question  that  we  shall  soon  have  free  textbooks 
in  California,  Since  the  State  undertakes  at  great  expense  the  education 
of  her  children,  it  would  seem  that  she  must  not  stop  short  of  providing 
the  necessary  tools  for  doing  the  work.  Well-equipped  buildings  and 
competent  teachers  are  provided,  but  these  will  fall  short  of  the  goal 
unless  supplemented  by  good  books  in  the  hands  of  all  the  children. 
The  textbook  is  an  indispensable  part  in  the  circle  of  instruction,  second 
only  to  the  teacher.  We  endanger  the  whole  edifice  of  public  education 
when  we  leave  this  gap.  For  many  parents  are  unable  to  furnish  books 
for  their  children,  but  still  are  unwilling  to  confess  pauperism  to  secure 
the  books  under  the  present  law  for  indigents.  Free  textbooks  have  been 
tried  in  other  states,  and  under  certain  safeguards  the  plan  has  worked 
well.  A  sentiment  in  favor  of  free  texts  is  growing  rapidly  in  Cal- 
ifornia. Is  it  not  wise  to  face  the  situation  now  and  prepare  a  carefully 
considered  plan  against  the  day  of  their  introduction? 

In  maturing  this  plan  we  shall  find  a  compelling  reason  why  the  State 

7 


Printing  Office  must  go.  if  that  office  were  charged  with  the  duty  of 
furnishing  free  textbooks,  there  would  be  less  incentive  to  keep  its  work 
up  to  a  decent  standard  than  at  present.  For  so  long  as  parents  pay 
directly  for  textbooks,  they  wilt  have  an  active  interest  in  the  quality  and 
cost  of  the  books.  But  with  textbooks  furnished  at  public  expense, 
this  critical  interest  would  be  materially  lessened.  To  the  average  man 
there  is  a  big  difference  between  the  iiiisappropriation  of  a  dollar  that 
comes  out  of  his  pocket  and  one  that  comes  out  of  the  public  purse. 
The  fierce  indignation  throughout  the  State  at  the  shameful  mismanage- 
ment of  the  State  Printing  Office  is  due  in  cqpsiderable  measure  to  a  real- 
ization of  personal  loss.  Why  do  we  hear  so  much  discussion  of  the  cost 
of  textbooks?  On  its  face  it  seems  strange,  when  we  consider  that  of  all 
the  money  spent  annually  in  California  for  education,  not  more  than  four 
per  cent  goes  for  textbooks.  And  yet  ninety-six  per  cent  of  all  the  talk 
concerns  the  four  per  cent  spent  for  books !  Why?  Because  the  ninety- 
six  per  cent  is  raised  by  taxation,  while  the  four  per  cent  is  paid  directly 
from  our  own  individual  pockets.  Furnish  textbooks  at  public  expense, 
and  we  shall  hear  no  more  criticism  of  the  cost  of  textbooks  than  of 
buildings,  desks,  supplies  and  teachers*  salaries. 

Is  it  not  clear  that  before  we  may  safely  lessen  the  public  scrutiny 
by  the  introduction  of  free  texts,  we  should  reject  a  plan  that  has 
proved  conducive  of  poor  books  at  high  prices?  Before  committing 
ourselves  to  free  textbooks,  we  should  evolve  a  plan  that  will  safeguard 
the  securing  at  reasonable  prices  of  good  books,  clearly  printed  and  well 
bound.  We  believe  that  we  should  steadfastly  resist  free  textbooks  in 
California  until  the  State  Printing  Office  is  done  away  with. 

MEETING  THE  EXPENSE  OF  FREE  TEXTBOOKS 

This  position  will  be  further  justified  by  a  consideration  of  the  pos- 
sible methods  of  inaugurating  free  textbooks  in  California  under  the  pres- 
ent constitutional  provision  calling  for  state  publication.  The  expense  of 
free  textbooks  would  have  to  be  met  by  the  State,  or  the  county,  or  the 
district,  or  by  combinations  of  the  three. 

The  State  certainly  would  not  pay  the  entire  cost  of  free  texts.  It 
is  a  well-established  principle  that  appropriations  granted  by  the  State 
should  be  supplemented  by  money  raised  by  local  taxation.  In  no  other 
way  can  extravagance  be  prevented  and  a  proper  sense  of  responsibility 
developed.      Furthermore,    it    seems    extremely    doubtful    whether    the 

8 


State  should  pay  any  portion  of  the  cost  of  free  texts.  The  State  is 
now  paying  toward  teachers'  salaries  about  one-half  the  total  cost  of 
our  elementary  schools.  We  believe  that  the  law  should  not  be  changed 
to  include  anything  else.  The  State  is  doing  her  full  share  now.  The 
people  are  paying  directly  for  textbooks  to-day.  Would  it  not  be  better 
and  fairer  for  them  to  continue  to  do  so  through  local  taxation?  The 
cost  of  textbooks  seems  legitimately  a  local  expense  along  with  other 
supplies.  This  plan  would  have  the  advantage  also  of  providing  a  suit- 
able check  on  expenditures.  For,  of  course,  there  can  be  no  such  thing 
as  free  texts.  We  believe  the  best  possible  plan  would  be  for  each  city 
and  county,  or  possibly  each  district,  to  decide  for  itself  whether  it 
desires  to  pay  for  its  books  collectively  or  by  the  parents  individually.  We 
believe  that  the  principle  of  local  option,  sharpening  responsibility  and 
educating  it,  should  prevail  in  all  cases  unless  clear  reasons  can  be  shown 
for  its  suspension.  In  a  democracy  questions  should  be  brought  home  to 
the  people  as  closely  as  effective  administration  will  permit.  With  local 
option  on  texts  it  seems  safe  to  assume  that  a  majority  of  the  units  would 
forthwith  decide  upon  free  texts. 

Thus  it  would  seem  safe  to  conclude  that  when  we  do  have  free 
texts  in  California  the  expense  will  be  borne  locally — probably  by  the 
county  with  the  assistance  of  the  district.  Under  the  plan  of  state  pub- 
lication, however,  we  should  face  the  necessity  of  purchasing  the  books 
from  the  State  Printer.  And  that  would  mean  that  we  should  be  worse 
off  than  we  are  today.  Freed  by  law  from  competition,  the  State  Printer 
could  still  furnish  inferior  books.  Effective  remonstrance  would  be  more 
difficult  to  secure  because  people  do  not  readily  respond  to  public  injury. 
We  call  a  man  who  steals  from  us  collectively  a  grafter;  him  who  steals 
from  us  individually,  a  thief.  Say  what  we  will,  our  indignation  in  the 
second  instance  is  more  apt  to  lead  to  action.  So  long  as  the  State 
maintains  a  monopoly  of  the  manufacture  of  textbooks  in  the  hands  of 
a  politician,  we  believe  that  the  introduction  of  free  textbooks  should  be 
postponed.     Let  us  not  make  a  bad  matter  worse. 

LOCAL  ADOPTIONS  VS.  STATE  UNIFORMITY 

We  believe  that  a  frank  examination  of  our  system  of  uniform  State 
texts  will  point  to  a  solution  of  the  problem.  State  publication  and  state 
uniformity  go  naturally  hand  in  hand.  If  the  reasons  for  doing  away 
with  state  publication  are  valid,  we  believe  that  it  can  be  shown  that 

9 


we  should  profit  educationally  by  substituting  local  adoption  for  state 
uniformity  of  texts.  While  this  assertion  may  seem  a  little  startling  in 
California,  it  would  be  considered  a  truism  in  every  other  progressive, 
well-settled  state  in  the  Union  with  the  exception  of  Indiana.  Let  us 
name  all  the  states  that  have  uniform  textbooks:  Virginia,  North  Car- 
olina. South  Carolina,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  Louisiana,  Oklahoma,  Texas,  New  Mexico,  Arizona,  Ne- 
vada, Utah,  Idaho,  Montana,  Oregon,  Kansas,  Indiana  and  California. 
This  list  contains  food  for  thought.  With  the  exception  of  the  last  four 
named,  the  list  falls  into  two  big  classes — the  Southern  States  and  the 
Plateau  States.  In  a  broad  way  we  see  clearly  that  the  two  most 
sparsely  settled  sections  of  our  country  favor  state  uniformity.  Is  this 
merely  a  happening,  or  is  there  a  reason  for  it?  We  believe  that  state 
uniformity  in  those  two  big  groups  of  states  is  a  genuine  educational 
adaptation  to  environment.  In  a  sparsely  settled  section  public  education 
costs  far  more  per  capita  than  in  more  populous  regions.  The  schools 
must  make  humble  beginnings  and  develop  with  the  section.  The  cost 
of  education  is  usually  so  great  that  only  the  rudiments  can  be  attempted 
at  first.  And  to  make  sure  of  even  a  humble  beginning,  the  power  and 
assistance  of  the  state  are  invoked.  Until  a  system  gathers  headway 
with  the  years,  it  seems  necessary  for  the  state  to  make  sure  that  certain 
minimum  requirements  are  enforced.  State  uniformity  of  texts  is  a  nat- 
ural means  of  handling  the  problem.  Thus  we  should  expect  to  find 
state  uniformity  in  the  South;  for  the  public  school  systems  in  those 
states  have  been  built  since  the  Civil  War.  There  were  no  public 
schools  in  the  South  in  1860.  We  should  also  expect  to  find  state 
uniformity  in  all  new  states,  as  evidenced  by  the  Plateau  group  as  a 
whole. 

Does  it  not  follow  conclusively  that  with  the  gradual  settlement  and 
development  of  a  state,  the  plan  of  state  uniformity  of  texts  must  com- 
plete its  purpose  and  give  way  to  a  system  more  responsive  to  the  needs 
of  the  people?  With  an  effective  public  school  system  in  full  swing, 
backed  by  an  alert  public  consciousness  of  the  worth  of  education,  state 
uniformity  is  no  longer  necessary  to  safeguard  minimum  requirements. 
Then  the  state  must  have  a  system  that  recognizes  the  inevitable  differ- 
entiations among  the  people;  that  meets  the  varying  needs  of  rural  and 
city  schools;  that  bases  itself  on  variety  as  co-equal  with  unity  in 
achieving  progress;  that  stimulates  progress  by  permitting  ready  adjust- 
ment to  organic  variations. 

10 


TTiis  process  of  educational  evolution  has  been  shown  clearly  in  the 
state  of  Washington.  When  it  was  first  made  a  state,  the  plan  of 
state  uniformity  rightly  imposed  upon  it  as  a  territory  was  continued. 
But  with  the  rapid  settlement  of  the  state,  with  the  growth  of  great 
cities,  with  varying  needs  among  the  people,  Washington  a  few  years 
ago  set  aside  its  outgrown  system  of  uniform  texts  in  favor  of  a  pro- 
gressive system  of  local  adoptions.  Several  other  states  have  done  the 
same. 

Now  let  us  turn  to  the  four  states  that  seem  to  be  out  of  their  pew  in 
favoring  state  uniformity.  Kansas  and  Oregon  may  not  have  developed 
sufficient  educational  momentum  safely  to  do  away  with  state  uniformity. 
But  how  about  Indiana  and  California?  At  last  we  understand  why 
Indiana  has  been  called  "the  Hoosier  State.**  Even  Missouri  has  been 
"shown,"  changing  a  few  years  ago  from  state  uniformity  to  local  adop- 
tions. Why  should  our  own  beloved  California,  progressive  as  she  truly 
is,  stand  squarely  across  the  path  of  educational  evolution?  Why  should 
California  and  Indiana  have  the  unenviable  distinction  of  serving  as  the 
exceptions  that  prove  the  rule?  We  believe  that  but  for  our  system 
of  state  publication,  we  should  have  discarded  our  plan  of  uniform  texts 
long  ago.  May  they  both  soon  pass  away  together  and  keep  themselves 
company  in  the  limbo  of  worn-out  plans! 

UNITS  OF  LOCAL  ADOPTION 

If  we  do  away  with  state  uniformity  of  texts  in  California,  what 
should  be  made  the  unit  or  units  of  local  adoption?  The  unit  of  local 
adoption  should  always  coincide  with  the  unit  of  supervision.  Our 
supervisory  imits  in  California  are  the  counties  and  the  cities.  The  same 
authority  that  prepares  the  course  of  study  and  supervises  its  execution 
in  the  schools  should  select  the  books  that  will  prove  most  effective  in 
carrying  out  that  course  of  study.  As  no  two  courses  of  study  ought  to 
be  alike,  the  folly  of  uniform  texts  for  all  these  courses  is  apparent.  It 
may  safely  be  assumed  that  the  average  county  board  of  education 
understands  the  needs  of  the  schools  of  that  county  better  than  does  the 
State  Board  of  Education,  none  of  whose  members  has  direct  contact 
with  elementary  school  work.  The  selection  by  the  State  Board  of  the 
books  to  be  used  in  all  the  schools  of  the  State  is  truly  an  anachronism. 
The  only  way  to  make  that  function  of  the  Board  consistent  would 
be  to  add  another  requiring  the  adoption  of  a  uniform  course  of  study. 

II 


Surely  the  authority  that  lays  out  the  work  should  also  prescribe  the  tools. 
Supervision,  course  of  study,  and  adoption  of  texts  rightly  belong 
together.  Educational  evolution  in  California  has  brought  supervision 
and  the  course  of  study  together  in  their  rightful  place.  One  step  more — 
local  adoption — and  we  shall  have  adjusted  the  three  main  factors  of 
effective  administration  of  schools. 

SCANDALS    UNDER    LOCAL    ADOPTIONS 

And  now  a  paragraph  or  two  for  the  doubting  Thomas  who  admits 
the  educational  superiority  of  optional  free  texts  and  local  adoptions, 
but  who  says  frankly  that  he  fears  scandals  in  local  boards  over 
adoptions.  This  honest  doubter  agrees  that  state  publication  must  go, 
but  asks  would  it  not  be  better  for  the  State  Board  of  Education  to 
make  contracts  directly  with  publishers  for  all  the  schools  in  the  State. 
The  doubter  fears  that  possible  scandals  in  local  boards  might  more 
than  offset  the  advantages  of  such  adoptions.  The  doubter  admits 
further  that  the  judgment  of  county  and  city  boards  of  education  con- 
cerning books  for  use  in  their  schools  would  be  superior  to  the  judgment 
of  the  State  Board  in  its  well-nigh  hopeless  task  of  adopting  books 
suitable  for  all  the  schools  of  the  State.  Thus  the  doubt  comes  squarely 
to  a  question  of  probity. 

It  would  seem  that  the  doubter  is  taking  counsel  of  his  fears 
rather  than  of  educational  experience  and  present  beliefs.  We  must 
bear  in  mind  that  all  county  adoptions  would  be  made  by  school  people, 
and  that  in  all  reputable  city  school  systems  the  boards  would  ratify 
pro  forma  the  recommendation  of  the  superintendent  and  his  assistants 
from  the  teaching  body.  Thus  local  adoptions  everywhere  would 
virtually  be  adoptions  by  school  people.  This  being  clear,  we  fail  to 
understand  why  the  doubter  has  more  confidence  in  the  probity  of  the 
average  normal  school  president  than  in  that  of  the  average  city  or 
county  superintendent,  or  the  average  high  school  or  grammar  school 
principal. 

Practically  and  theoretically  the  doubter  has  the  wrong  end  of 
the  argument.  Admitting  that  all  men  are  human  and  should  pray 
sincerely  to  be  delivered  from  temptation,  the  greater  the  temptation 
the  greater  the  danger  of  falling.  Where  would  the  temptation  be 
greater,  with  a  State  Board  handhng  a  two  hundred  thousand 
contract  or  with  a  county  board  letting  a  five  thousand  dollar  contract? 
If  a  man  has  a  purchase  price,  on  which  board  would  he  be  most  likely 

12 


to  get  it?  As  a  general  proposition  the  plan  of  state  boards  far  removed 
from  the  people  and  handling  large  contracts  is  to  be  deprecated. 
The  temptation  is  necessarily  increased  while  the  sense  of  responsibility 
is  lessened.  Local  adoptions  fit  in  perfectly  with  the  present  tendency 
to  favor  boards  closely  responsible  to  the  people  and  not  handling  sums 
approaching  the  temptation  point. 

We  believe  that  our  doubter  is  temperamentally  a  conservative.  If 
he  were  accustomed  to  local  adoptions — the  plan  followed  in  all  the 
great  progressive  states — and  the  proposal  were  made  to  substitute 
uniform  adoptions  by  a  State  Board,  we  believe  that  our  doubter 
would  have  stronger  doubts  than  at  present.  And  his  questions,  in  that 
event,  would  be  more  difficult  of  answer.  Finally,  let  it  be  said  to 
allay  the  doubts  of  the  doubter,  that  it  was  a  scandal  connected  with 
a  member  of  the  State  Board  of  Education  that  led  to  the  taking  from 
the  State  Board  and  vesting  in  county  boards  the  right  to  issue  teachers' 
certificates — a  legitimate  function  of  the  State  Board  and  one  that 
should  be  returned  to  it,  for  the  power  of  certification  determines  minimum 
requirements  throughout  the  State. 

THE    COST    OF    TEXTBOOKS 

Since  educational  experience  and  educational  theory  both  strongly 
sanction  local  adoptions  and  optional  free  texts,  we  might  fairly  rest 
the  case  at  this  point.  But  we  desire  to  meet  the  advocates  of  state 
publication  on  the  only  point  left — cost  of  books.  Some  people  might 
be  disposed  to  put  up  with  a  confessedly  poor  system  if  it  could  Be 
shown  that  such  a  system  is  cheaper  than  the  one  proposed.  A  system 
of  local  adoptions  necessarily  involves  the  purchase  of  books  in  the 
open  market.  It  does  away  necessarily  with  state  publication.  Can 
books  be  purchased  under  local  adoptions  at  prices  comparable  with 
those  charged  under  state  publication? 

A  study  of  conditions  and  prices  in  states  having  local  adoptions 
will  prove  instructive.  Where  boards  representing  cities  or  counties 
deal  directly  with  publishers,  the  books  are  laid  down  to  these  authorities, 
or  to  dealers  in  non-free-text  territory,  at  20  per  cent  off  the  list  price. 
In  several  states  the  books  are  laid  down  at  the  capital  at  25  per  cent 
off  the  list  price.  The  list  price  of  a  book  is  the  price  fixed  by  the 
publisher  at  which  the  book  should  be  sold  in  ordinary  trade  over 
the  dealer's  counter.  The  list  price  includes  the  profits  of  both  the 
jobber  and  the  retailer.      Co-operative  buying  from  publishers   direct 

13 


cuts  out  these  profits  and  makes  a  material  reduction  in  the  cost  of  the 
book  to  the  pupil.  With  city  and  county  adoptions  in  California,  the 
books  could  easily  be  delivered  to  boards  of  education,  or  to  dealers 
in  non-free-text  territory,  at  20  per  cent  off  the  list  price. 

We  are  now  ready  for  a  specific  comparison  of  prices  under  our 
present  system  of  state  publication  with  those  that  would  prevail  under 
local  adoptions.  California  publishes  six  texts  in  reading  and  sells 
them  to  the  children  as  follows:  primer — 28  cents;  first  reader — 25 
cents;  second  reader — 30  cents;  third  reader — 45  cents;  fourth 
reader — 60  cents;  fifth  reader — 60  cents.  The  total  cost  of  the 
six  books  is  $2.48.  The  list  prices  of  the  same  books  as  published 
regularly  follow:  Aldine  primer  (Newson  &  Co.) — 32  cents;  Pro- 
gressive First  Reader  (Silver,  Burdett  &  Co.) — 32  cents;  Brooks' 
Second  Reader  (American  Book  Co.) — 35  cents;  Brooks'  Third 
Reader  (American  Book  Co.) — 40  cents;  Stepping  Stones  Fourth 
Reader  (Silver,  Burdett  &  Co.) — 60  cents;  Stepping  Stones  Fifth 
Reader  (Silver,  Burdett  &  Co.) — 60  cents.  TTie  total  list  price  of 
the  six  is  $2.59.  Deducting  20  per  cent  we  have  $2.07,  the  price 
at  which  the  books  would  be  delivered  to  city  and  county  boards,  or  to 
dealers  in  non-free-text  territory.  Adding  1 0  per  cent  of  the  list  price 
for  the  cost  of  handling  by  superintendents  or  dealers,  we  have  $2.33 
as  the  price  to  be  paid  by  the  children.  This  is  1 5  cents  less  than 
we  are  paying  now  for  these  books  on  inferior  paper  and  with  poor 
bindings. 

But  some  one  objects  that  the  total  cost  of  $2.48  for  the  State 
readers  would  be  materially  lessened  if  all  the  graft  could  be  squeezed 
out  of  the  State  Printing  Office  and  business-like  methods  introduced. 
This  is  certainly  true.  Fortunately  we  have  the  figures  of  the  secretary 
of  the  State  Board  of  Control,  an  expert  accountant,  to  help  us  on 
this  point.  He  furnished  the  senatorial  investigating  committee  with  an 
estimate  of  the  rightful  cost  of  the  primer  and  the  first  three  readers 
as  follows:  primer — 24  cents;  first  reader — 22  cents;  second  reader — 
25  cents;  third  reader — 33  cents.  This  estimate  makes  a  total  cost 
of  $1.04  for  the  four  books  as  against  the  present  price  of  $1.28,  the 
difference  of  24  cents  representing  the  extracted  graft.  Under  local 
adoptions,  what  would  the  four  books  cost  our  children?  The  list 
prices  of  the  four  total  $1.39.  Deducting  20  per  cent  for  county  or 
city  adoption,  and  adding  10  per  cent  for  handling,  we  have  $1.25 
as  against  the  estimate  of   $1.04.      But   let    us   remember   that    this 

14 


apparent  difference  of  21  cents  is  not  based  on  equal  values  in  paper, 
binding,  and  workmanship.  It  means  the  difference  between  books 
properly  made  and  those  that  readily  fall  to  pieces.  It  means  books 
that  will  last  twice  as  long.  The  difference  in  quality  and  lasting 
power  probably  more  than  offsets  the  21  cents.  Furthermore,  be  it 
remembered  that  the  estimate  of  $1.04  is  merely  an  estimate  that  rests 
upon  an  assumption  of  a  business-like  administration  of  the  State 
Printing  Office — an  assumption  negatived  by  the  experience  of  twenty- 
six  years. 

EXCHANGE     OF     TEXTBOOKS 

However,  let  us  be  optimistic.  Let  us  assume  that  the  State  could 
sell  these  four  books  at  $1.04  without  calling  upon  the  legislature  for 
a  special  appropriation  for  the  State  Printing  Office.  Let  us  also 
waive  the  question  of  qualities  in  paper,  binding,  and  workmanship. 
In  connection  with  that  apparent  difference  of  21  cents,  there  still 
remains  another  consideration  which  knocks  the  last  prop  from  under 
a  belief  in  the  lower  cost  of  State  texts.  We  refer  to  the  exchange  of 
books  granted  by  publishers  under  local  adoptions.  On  a  four  years' 
adoption,  publishers  would  grant  in  California  an  exchange  price  of 
40  per  cent  off  on  all  books  sold  the  first  year  of  the  adoption. 
Figures  show  that  under  exchange  not  less  than  40  per  cent  of  all 
books  sold  under  a  four  years'  contract  are  sold  the  first  year,  and  that 
75  per  cent  of  these  purchases  are  on  exchange.  This  represents  an 
average  reduction  of  12  per  cent  on  every  book  sold  during  the  entire 
period  of  adoption.  Under  our  plan  of  state  publication  there  is  a 
total  loss  whenever  a  book  is  changed.  Since  educational  progress 
makes  occasional  changes  in  texts  necessary,  would  it  not  be  far  better 
to  have  a  system  that  would  not  leave  the  old  books  a  dead  loss  to 
ipupils  and  parents?  If  the  book  bills  of  some  families  could  be  cut 
40  per  cent  through  the  privilege  of  exchange,  there  would  be  a  strong 
incentive  to  keep  books  against  the  day  of  exchange. 

EXCHANGE     AND     THE     DEALERS 

Supplementary  to  the  question  of  exchange  lies  a  question  of 
administration  that  has  worried  every  school  official  in  California.  We 
refer  to  the  impossibility,  under  our  present  system,  of  getting  enough 
books  the  first  week  of  school  to  supply  all  the  children.  Practically 
every  teacher,  principal  and  superintendent  in  California  will  bear  elo- 

15 


quent  testimony  that  never  have  the  children  under  his  charge  been 
able  to  secure  all  the  necessary  books  the  first  week  of  school.  At 
such  times  the  newspapers  all  over  the  State  are  voicing  the  complaints 
of  superintendents.  The  reason  for  this  state  of  affairs  is  not  far  to 
seek.  Usually  the  State  Printing  Office  is  partly  at  fault;  but  even 
when  its  skirts  are  clean,  the  trouble  persists  owing  to  the  unwillingness 
of  local  dealers  to  order  freely  for  school  opening.  With  cash  accom- 
panying all  orders  for  State  books,  with  no  return  privileges,  and 
with  only  a  small  margin  of  profit,  the  dealers  dare  not  take  the  chance 
of  being  "stuck."  Hence  they  invariably  order  light  and  continue  to 
re-order  for  two  or  three  months.  Experience  has  shown  the  dealers 
that  this  is  the  only  safe  way.  Meanwhile  the  schools  suffer.  Many 
parents  who  naturally  expect  to  buy  books  for  their  children  at  the  time 
of  school  opening  object  strenuously  later  on.  Local  adoptions  (with 
or  without  free  texts)  would  enable  every  school  in  California  to  be 
fully  equipped  the  first  week.  How  so?  Whenever  a  book  is  dis- 
placed under  local  adoptions,  the  publishers  of  the  new  book  take  from 
the  dealers  at  dollar  for  dollar  all  the  stock  on  hand.  Thus  protected 
against  loss,  dealers  have  no  hesitancy  to  order  freely  on  the  estimate 
which  the  superintendent  or  principal  is  always  glad  to  furnish.  In 
free-text  territory  the  problem  of  securing  books  on  time  solves  itself. 
To  encourage  boards  to  order  adequately  for  prospective  needs,  pub- 
lishers grant  a  return  privilege  on  the  books  up  to  20  per  cent  of  the 
original  order. 

TWO    PAYMENTS    UNDER    STATE    PUBLICATION 

There  still  remains  another  important  factor  in  the  cost  of  text- 
books that  usually  is  lost  sight  of  completely.  Under  state  publication 
the  people  of  California  have  been  called  upon  to  make  an  indirect 
second  payment  for  textbooks  in  addition  to  the  sums  paid  directly  by 
parents.  From  the  inception  of  state  publication  to  June  30,  1910,  the 
parents  in  this  State  paid  $2,553,824.29  directly  for  textbooks.  No 
doubt  the  great  majority  of  these  parents  believed  they  were  paying 
the  entire  cost  of  the  books.  Far  from  it.  During  the  time  mentioned 
the  legislature  made  special  appropriations  aggregating  $607,600  to 
further  the  work  of  state  publication.  Thus  in  addition  to  the  sums 
paid  directly  by  parents  for  books,  we  were  obliged  to  add  from  the 
State  treasury  23  per  cent  more.  However,  the  man  who  paid  four 
dollars  for  his  children's  books  did  not  realize  that  he  was   adding 

16 


nearly  another  dollar  for  books  in  his  taxes.  If  he  had  realized  it, 
we  should  have  heard  from  him.  That  realization  would  have  shaken 
his  loyalty  to  a  professedly  independent  system  that  needs  23  per  cent 
of  coddling  from  the  State  to  make  it  go.  If  this  parent  were  a 
business  man,  his  loyalty  to  the  system  would  probably  have  been 
completely  destroyed  by  the  consideration  that  if  these  special  appro- 
priations of  $607,600  had  been  placed  at  interest  at  5  per  cent,  they 
would  now  amount  to  at  least  $1,250,000,  or  approximately  50  per 
cent  of  the  amount  paid  by  the  parents.  Any  comparison  of  the  cost 
of  books  under  state  publication  with  the  cost  under  local  adoptions 
that  does  not  take  these  special  appropriations  into  account  is  mani- 
festly incomplete  and  unfair.  For,  waiving  the  question  of  interest, 
these  appropriations  aggregating  23  per  cent  of  the  sums  paid  directly 
for  the  books  loom  up  in  any  honest  discussion  of  the  subject.  Though 
usually  overlooked  in  textbook  discussions,  these  appropriations  are  as 
big  and  significant  as  the  Fairmont  Hotel  on  the  skyline  of  San  Fran- 
cisco. They  are  significant,  first,  in  removing  the  last  reasonable  doubt 
as  to  relative  costs  under  state  publication  and  local  adoptions.  Sec- 
ondly, because  of  the  ease  with  which  we  lose  sight  of  these  appro- 
priations— the  money  of  all  the  people  rather  than  of  individuals — 
they  are  significant  in  enforcing  the  necessity  of  a  system  of  publication 
and  adoption  close  to  the  people  and  responsive  to  their  varying  needs, 
before  we  dare  commit  ourselves  to  free  texts.  No  more  serious 
educational  blunder  could  be  made  than  free  texts  under  state  publica- 
tion. Since  free  texts  are  right  and  desirable,  it  is  evident  that  our 
rigid,  cost-concealing  system  of  state  publication  must  give  way  for 
the  introduction  of  free  texts  under  an  open,  elastic,  less  expensive  and 
more  democratic  plan. 

SUMMING  UP  THE  ECONOMIC  ARGUMENT 

In  summing  up  the  economic  points  disclosed  in  this  comparison 
of  state  publication  and  local  adoptions,  we  believe  that  the  facts 
clearly  confirm  the  belief  that  state  publication  is  the  more  expensive 
plan.  Under  local  adoptions  our  children  would  have  books  strongly 
and  artistically  dressed.  TTiis  fundamental  right  of  California  child- 
hood has  been  persistently  denied  under  state  publication.  If  the  State 
Printing  Office  could  produce  books  equal  in  paper,  binding,  and 
workmanship  to  the  books  issued  by  regular  publishers,  it  is  highly 
probable  that  the  cost  of  these  books  would  equal,  if  not  exceed,  the 

17 


list  prices  of  the  publishers.  Under  county  and  city  adoptions,  however, 
these  list  prices  would  be  materially  reduced  through  eliminating  the 
profits  of  jobbers  and  retailers.  Under  local  adoptions  a  generous 
allowance  of  40  per  cent  would  be  made  for  the  exchange  of  books. 
Under  state  publication  every  change  means  a  dead  loss.  Under  local 
adoptions  our  schools  would  be  supplied  on  time,  for  boards  of  education, 
and  dealers  in  non-free-text  territory,  would  both  be  protected  against 
loss.  Under  state  publication  we  can  not  hope  to  have  books  enough 
on  opening  day,  for  dealers  are  wary  of  a  plan  that  carries  high  risks 
and  small  profits.  Finally,  under  local  adoptions  we  should  be  obliged 
to  pay  only  once  for  our  books.  Under  state  publication  we  have 
added  23  per  cent  to  the  sums  paid  directly  by  parents.  In  view 
of  all  these  economic  factors,  who  can  honestly  doubt  that  state  publi- 
cation is  the  more  expensive  plan? 

POLITICAL     BENEFICIARIES     OF     STATE     PUBLICATION 

When  the  man  who  thinks  with  his  brains  and  not  with  his 
prejudices  realizes  that  state  publication  is  not  only  undesirable  educa- 
tionally but  is  also  more  expensive  than  local  adoptions,  he  begins  to 
understand  the  textbook  situation  in  California.  He  grasps  the  real 
reason  why  critics  of  state  publication  are  persistently  accused  of  being 
"pliant  tools  of  the  book  trust.'*  From  the  day  years  ago  when 
Supt.  J.  W.  Linscott,  one  of  the  most  highly  esteemed  schoolmen  in 
California,  raised  his  voice  against  the  evils  of  state  publication,  and 
paid  for  his  temerity  by  having  his  political  aspirations  killed  and  his 
personal  character  assailed;  from  that  day  to  the  present,  the  honest 
critic  of  state  publication  has  been  abused  and  his  motives  impeached. 
Why  do  not  the  advocates  of  state  publication  join  battle  fairly  without 
abuse  and  without  misrepresentation?  Do  they  not  realize  that  abuse 
and  misrepresentation  are  always  a  confession  that  the  system  under 
investigation  will  not  bear  the  light?  As  might  have  been  expected, 
the  system  of  state  publication  soon  developed  a  well-organized  body 
of  beneficiaries.  Many  a  soft  job  has  it  furnished  for  political  hench- 
men! Many  a  juicy  contract  has  it  awarded  to  big  business  for  timely 
assistance  in  political  stress!  A  fine  political  asset,  the  machines  of  the 
two  great  parties  have  fought  persistently  to  control  it.  What  more 
natural  than  a  fixed  policy  of  both  parties  to  hush  criticisms  that  might 
possibly  lead  to  the  removal  of  the  "plum"?  What  more  natural  than 
for  the  beneficiaries  of  the  system  to  resent  attacks  upon  it?     And  was 

18 


not  the  weapon  of  defense  ready  at  hand?  The  critic  could  be  dubbed 
"an  enemy  of  the  peerless  school  system  of  California,"  and  a  sure 
means  of  completing  his  public  discomfiture  was  to  brand  him  as  **an 
emissary  of  the  book  trust."  This  waving  the  red  rag  of  "the  book 
trust"  was  cleverly  and  persistently  done  to  confuse  the  great  mass  of 
honest  voters.  Apparently  this  appeal  to  prejudice — this  little  game  of 
stop  thief — would  have  worked  forever  had  it  not  been  for  a  progressive, 
honest  governor  and  an  inquiring  State  Board  of  Control.  Even 
then  the  comments  from  a  goodly  portion  of  the  newspapers  of  the  State 
on  the  shake-up  in  the  State  Printing  Office  were  singularly  interesting. 
The  headlines  showed  that  many  an  editor  somehow  felt  it  incumbent 
upon  himself  to  blame  "the  book  trust"  for  the  misdeeds  of  the  system 
designed  and  established  "to  free  the  people  from  the  cruel  exactions 
of  the  book  trust."  The  editors  were  honest,  too.  The  habit  of  making 
"the  book  trust"  the  scapegoat  for  all  our  educational  ills  was  so  strong 
upon  them  that  they  were  simply  unable  to  adjust  themselves  promptly 
to  the  real  situation. 


SIGNS     OF     A     BETTER     DAY 

Very  shrewd  have  the  beneficiaries  of  state  publication  been  in  dis- 
tracting attention  from  the  educational  and  economic  defects  of  the 
system.  Their  method  was  the  time-honored  dodge  of  an  appeal  to 
state  pride  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  prejudice  against  publishers  on  the 
other.  This  hoary  political  ruse  worked  unfailingly  up  to  the  expose 
of  the  real  inwardness  of  the  State  Printing  Office.  But  that  revelation 
opened  the  eyes  of  the  people  and  prepared  the  way  for  a  dispassionate 
estimate  of  state  publication.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  people 
are  beginning  to  realize  that  state  publication  is  a  failure  both  educa- 
tionally and  financially.  It  is  being  made  plain  to  all  that  state  publi- 
cation is  without  honor  both  at  home  and  abroad.  Not  five  prominent 
school  people  in  California  to-day  approve  of  state  publication.  Several 
other  states  through  legislative  committees  have  carefully  examined  the 
California  plan  of  state  publication,  and  without  exception  have  reported 
against  it  These  adverse  reports  were  based  on  the  clearly  perceived 
educational  and  financial  shortcomings  of  the  system.  These  reports 
now  have  added  confirmation  through  the  scandal  in  our  State  Printing 
Office. 

We  are  nearly  ready  for  a  new  day  and  a  better  order  of  things. 
State  publication  is  seen   to  be  not  merely   bad   in  itself  but   also   a 

19 


?u 


r"^\ 


barrier  to  progress.  It  stands  squarely  across  the  path  of  free  textbooks, 
for  the  evils  incident  to  state  publication  would  be  increased  under 
free  texts.  Secondly,  state  publication  compels  uniform  texts  through- 
out the  State.  Educational  evolution  demands  that  California  replace 
her  system  of  uniform  texts  with  a  system  of  local  adoptions,  so  that  the 
varying  needs  of  the  several  sections  of  the  State  may  truly  be  served. 
California  must  cast  aside  the  swaddling  clothes  of  state  uniformity 
and  don  the  only  dress  worthy  of  a  grown-up  state — local  adoptions. 
But  so  long  as  state  publication  is  continued,  local  adoptions  are  impos- 
sible and  no  satisfactory  system  of  free  texts  can  be  devised. 

To  the  administration  of  Governor  Johnson  we  owe  the  turning  of 
the  light  upon  state  publication.  Free  from  demagogic  claptrap,  the 
investigation  of  the  State  Printing  Office  is  rendering  a  valuable  service. 
The  people  are  studying  the  question  dispassionately,  and  there  can  be 
no  doubt  as  to  their  final  conclusion.  When  they  once  see  clearly  that 
state  publication  is  not  only  bad  educationally  and  financially,  but  that 
it  is  also  a  real  barrier  to  free  texts  and  local  adoptions,  the  present 
plan  will  forthwith  be  swept  aside  to  make  way  for  a  better  day.  We 
look  to  the  present  administration  to  complete  the  work  so  auspiciously 
begun.  There  are  now  many  fair  jewels  of  achievement  in  the  crown 
of  the  present  administration.  None  could  be  fairer  than  the  establish- 
ment of  a  system  of  optional  free  texts  and  local  adoptions.  For  such  a 
step  would  bring  California  into  the  enjoyment  of  her  inalienable  right 
to  the  best. 


20 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


Oay»ord  Bro» 


M«ker» 


f*    V 


Syraeo»e-      _ 


y^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  UBRARY 


